year dataSet station freq date_start date_end pairing type
------ ---------- ------------- ------------------- ------------ ----------- --------- ---------
2021 2021-BE grafton 70kHz and 200 kHz 7/12/2021 8/30/2021 2 control
2021 2021-BE birkenfels 70kHz and 200 kHz 7/12/2021 8/30/2021 1 control
2021 2021-BE cpower Lost 7/12/2021 8/30/2021 2 OWF
2021 2021-BE belwind 70kHz and 200 kHz 7/12/2021 8/30/2021 1 OWF
2023 2023-BE belwind 70kHz and 200 kHz 7/5/2023 9/3/2023 1 OWF
2023 2023-BE cpower 70 kHz 7/5/2023 9/3/2023 2 OWF
2023 2023-BE gardencity 70kHz and 200 kHz 7/5/2023 9/3/2023 1 control
2023 2023-BE grafton 70kHz and 200 kHz 7/5/2023 9/3/2023 2 control
2023 2023-BSW 267814 BSW3 70kHz 5/7/2023 6/16/2023 2 OWF
2023 2023-BSW 267838 BSW4 70kHz and 200 kHz 5/7/2023 6/16/2023 1 OWF
2023 2023-BSW 274174 BSW1 70kHz and 200 kHz 5/7/2023 6/16/2023 1 control
2023 2023-BSW 278093 BSW2 70kHz and 200 kHz 5/7/2023 6/16/2023 2 control
2024 2024-BE cpower 70kHz and 200 kHz 10/4/2023 12/4/2023 1 OWF
2024 2024-BE grafton 70kHz and 200 kHz 10/4/2023 12/4/2023 1 control
The time series are shown below for the CPOD data (1.1) and WBAT data at 70 kHz (1.2) and 200 kHz (1.3).
Figure 1.1: Time series of CPOD recordings per pair and data sets.
Figure 1.2: Time series of WBAT recordings @70khz per pair and data sets.
Figure 1.3: Time series of WBAT recordings @200khz per pair and data sets.
Figure 2.1: Boxplot of acoustic density (SA) @70kHz at OWF and control sites for day and night periods.
Figure 2.2: Boxplot of acoustic density (SA) @70kHz at OWF and control sites for day and night periods.
From Figures 3.1, HP presence is higher at the control sites. When standardized as hour positive minutes, one can observed comparable results 3.2.
Figure 3.1: Boxplot of Harbor porpoise daily presence at control and OWF sites.
Figure 3.2: Boxplot of Harbor porpoise hour positive minutes at control and OWF sites.
HP presence seems to be associated with higher biomass, i.e. Figures 4.1 and 4.2. Though there is variations in day/night periods and between sites (Figure 4.3 and 4.4).
Figure 4.1: Boxplot of acoustic density (SA) @70kHz with presence and absence of Harbor porpoise at OWF and control sites.
Figure 4.2: Boxplot of acoustic density (SA) @200kHz with presence and absence of Harbor porpoise at OWF and control sites.
Figure 4.3: Boxplot of acoustic density (SA) @70kHz with presence and absence of Harbor porpoise. Results are shown per data sets over day and night periods.
Figure 4.4: Boxplot of acoustic density (SA) @200kHz with presence and absence of Harbor porpoise. Results are shown per data sets over day and night periods.
There is a possible increase of PPM biomass, i.e. Figures 5.1 and 5.2. The increase is more pronouced at 200 kHz. The results are further broken down in to day/night periods in Figures 5.3 and 5.4
Figure 5.1: Boxplot of acoustic density (SA) @70kHz in different porpoise positive minute bins. Results combine data at the control and OWF sites.
Figure 5.2: Boxplot of acoustic density (SA) @200kHz in different porpoise positive minute bins. Results combine data at the control and OWF sites.
Figure 5.3: Boxplot of acoustic density (SA) @70kHz in different porpoise positive minute bins. Results combine data at the control and OWF sites for day/night period.
Figure 5.4: Boxplot of acoustic density (SA) @200kHz in different porpoise positive minute bins. Results combine data at the control and OWF sites for day/night period.